Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Settings
About Consumerium development wiki
Disclaimers
Consumerium development wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Contributions
Log in
Editing
Talk:The Consumerium Exchange
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==So why is it called an "Exchange"== Hey, it was YOU who called it an "exchange". If what is going on is voting, it is a "forum". So pick the correct name. :I thought it had fun analogies, but perhaps it is a bit misleading. The analogies being the ability to IPO new [[campaign]]s, the ability to "buy" and "sell" "share(s)" on the campaigns. The ability to [[merge]] and [[split]] and [[Nullify|Bankrupt (Nullify)]] campaigns. The ability to aggregate information to form all sorts of [[indices]] that can be used as reference points when evaluating stuff. The ability to plot long term performance of different instruments and composites. _If_ the implementation has a proper signal-noise-ratio and enough volume then it could be an another source of information for people trading in real equity markets. Megalomaniac, me?!?! ::OK, so the [[campaign]] in this model is an analogy to the [[stock]] in the market? That at least lets you treat campaigns as [[option]]s of a sort, a [[pure play]] on the success or failure of the campaign itself. I think you should work this out in detail, but do read the Adler paper when you have time. It's a good balance to Hanson. Also you need to understand [[portfolio management]] basics, see http://mark-to-future.com for [[Ron Dembo]]'s model of [[regret]] as actually being the only way to objectively measure [[risk]]. Then you might see how [[financial capital]] is built from [[social capital]], [[instructional capital]] (the [[future]]s we believe in stated each as a [[scenario]], combined in a weighted way, the process and comprehensive outcome knowledge itself). Then it may be more obvious how this stuff must fit together. :So whatsithen? The Consumerium Agora? ::Agora also implies markets. As it is, you are talking about a [[Consumerium Forum]] I think. ---- It is not necessary to trust anyone completely - one might for instance trust [[Greenpeace]] the most but only to a "0.7" level. All other organisations could then be trusted to some number proportional to them, but less than 0.7. :This makes sense only if you choose multiple "trust roots" and place some numeric values for the level of trust. If you choose to trust [[Organisation X]] most, but choose no other organisations then the number you set doesn't matter since all scores will be offset by this value equally??? ----
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Consumerium development wiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or later (see
Consumerium:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Return to "The Consumerium Exchange" page.